Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Monthly streamflow prediction and performance comparison of machine learning and deep learning methods

  • Research Article - Hydrology
  • Published:
Acta Geophysica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Streamflow prediction is an important matter for the water resources management and the design of hydraulic structures that can be built on rivers. Recently, it has become a widely studied research field where data obtained from stream gauge stations can be utilized for creating estimating models by resorting to different methods such as machine and deep learning techniques. In this study, we performed monthly streamflow predictions by using the following data-driven methods of machine learning: linear regression, support vector regression, random forest and deep learning (DL) models to compare the performances of ML's and DL's techniques. A general workflow that can be applied to similar regions is presented. An estimating model containing six-input combinations and time-lagged streamflow data is improved by means of the autocorrelation function (ACF) and partial autocorrelation function (PACF). Furthermore, moving average is used as a smoothing technique to make the dataset more stable and reduce the effects of noise data. A comparative evaluation has been conducted to determine the performances of the above-mentioned methods. In this study, we proposed four different DL models and compared them with existing techniques. For the comparison of the results, we used evaluation criteria such as Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE), mean square error (MSE) and percent bias (PBIAS). The experimental results indicate that our bidirectional gated recurrent units (BiGRU) model outperforms both ML algorithms and existing solutions with 0.971 NSE, 0.001 MSE and − 1.536 PBIAS scores.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of Data and Materials

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

Download references

Funding

The authors declare that no funds, grants or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by ÖA, DFK, MKK and ET. The first draft of the manuscript was written by all authors. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Evren Turhan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no relevant known competing financial or non-financial interests to disclose, or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Ethical approval

Authors certify that the submission is original work and is not published at any other publications. Also, authors declare that this article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any authors.

Consent to participate

Authors state that all the contributing authors are actively participated in this research study. Also authors consent to their participation in the entire review process.

Consent to publish

Authors have agreed to submit the article in this journal and have allowed publication if the research is accepted. Also authors wish to publish the research findings.

Additional information

Edited by Prof. Jarosław Napiórkowski (ASSOCIATE EDITOR) / Dr. Michael Nones (CO-EDITOR-IN-CHIEF).

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ayana, Ö., Kanbak, D., Kaya Keleş, M. et al. Monthly streamflow prediction and performance comparison of machine learning and deep learning methods. Acta Geophys. 71, 2905–2922 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11600-023-01023-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11600-023-01023-6

Keywords

Navigation